What do you think?
Rate this book
The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997
A WASHINGTON POST BOOK WORLD NOTABLE BOOKAfter the American Revolution, the British Empire appeared to be doomed. Yet it grew to become the greatest, most diverse empire the world had seen. Then, within a generation, the mighty structure collapsed, a rapid demise that left an array of dependencies and a contested at best a sporting spirit, a legal code and a near-universal language; at worst, failed states and internecine strife. The Decline and Fall of the British Empire covers a vast canvas, which Brendon fills with vivid particulars, from brief lives to telling anecdotes to comic episodes to symbolic moments.
841 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 18, 2007
139 people are currently reading
1682 people want to read
About the author
Piers Brendon
36 books30 followersPiers Brendon was educated at Shrewsbury School and Magdalene College, Cambridge, where he read History. From 1965–1978, he was Lecturer in History, then Principal Lecturer and Head of Department, at what is now the Anglia Polytechnic University. From 1979 onwards he has worked as a free-lance writer of books, journalism and for television. From 1995 he has been a Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge and was Keeper of the Churchill Archives Centre from 1995 to 2001
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
July 19, 2018
Being a product of the British Empire, I have something of a soft spot for it. Piers Brendon doesn’t. This massive book, which took me nearly a month to finish, has almost nothing good to say about history’s biggest-ever empire, concentrating instead on land-grabs, the exploitation of peoples and resources, imperial arrogance, corruption and perfidy, military and political blunders, atrocities of various kinds, acts of cowardice and betrayal, policies of deliberate neglect and policies of divide and rule. There is, admittedly, plenty of such material to choose from. I don’t believe Brendon misses any of it.
What he does miss, apart from a handful of grudging references thinly sprinkled across more than 650 closely-printed pages, is the plethora of benefits that British rule brought the colonies. British-built roads, railways, seaports and airfields were designed to facilitate colonial commerce and project imperial power, yet were of incommensurable value to the local people who also used them. British trade and economic development benefited locals too – and not just members of the comprador classes either. British schools and missions were designed to create docile and usefully employable imperial subjects, yet they also propagated knowledge, helped overcome superstition and ignorance and introduced to subject peoples the selfsame liberal ideas that would, in time, encourage them to demand and win their freedom. If a majority of the world's peoples today can be termed ‘civilized’ in any sense, then it is the British and their empire that deserve the lion's share of the credit.
But Brendon isn’t interested in any of that. He just goes banging on about the horrors of British rule, even when forced to admit that other empires, from that of Rome to Japan’s notorious wartime ‘Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere’, were far worse. A benign empire is, of course, a contradiction in terms; but I do believe the British tried harder than any other imperial power, and with more success, to resolve those contradictions.
It is hard to understand exactly what the author’s motivation was to research and write this book. Clearly he has an axe to grind and it cuts to the left, but this is just a smear job with no larger political conclusions drawn from it. There is not even a fig-leaf of an attempt to appear fair. Many times I was tempted to quit reading and fling the book across the room. I persevered because of my interest in the subject; you might say I persisted for scholarly reasons.
And talking of scholarship, that in the book appears largely second-hand. The text is copiously annotated (there are nearly 100 pages of endnotes!) but most of the notes are just attributions of clever turns of phrase Brendon has mined from other people’s work; only rarely do they seem to offer factual support for his assertions. On the subject of my own country many of his statements are flatly wrong, leading me to believe that his scholarship regarding other parts of the erstwhile British Empire is probably just as sloppy.
Brendon also seems to have a personal grouse against Rupert Murdoch, and misses no opportunity to slander the man, the newspapers he owns, and even Murdoch’s forebears. Astonishing, that he could find time for such pettiness in the midst of this Herculean literary effort.
Incidentally, and ironically, I borrowed this book from the British Council library in the capital city of the former British colony where I was born and still live. That fact itself gives the lie to many of Brendon's animadversions.
What he does miss, apart from a handful of grudging references thinly sprinkled across more than 650 closely-printed pages, is the plethora of benefits that British rule brought the colonies. British-built roads, railways, seaports and airfields were designed to facilitate colonial commerce and project imperial power, yet were of incommensurable value to the local people who also used them. British trade and economic development benefited locals too – and not just members of the comprador classes either. British schools and missions were designed to create docile and usefully employable imperial subjects, yet they also propagated knowledge, helped overcome superstition and ignorance and introduced to subject peoples the selfsame liberal ideas that would, in time, encourage them to demand and win their freedom. If a majority of the world's peoples today can be termed ‘civilized’ in any sense, then it is the British and their empire that deserve the lion's share of the credit.
But Brendon isn’t interested in any of that. He just goes banging on about the horrors of British rule, even when forced to admit that other empires, from that of Rome to Japan’s notorious wartime ‘Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere’, were far worse. A benign empire is, of course, a contradiction in terms; but I do believe the British tried harder than any other imperial power, and with more success, to resolve those contradictions.
It is hard to understand exactly what the author’s motivation was to research and write this book. Clearly he has an axe to grind and it cuts to the left, but this is just a smear job with no larger political conclusions drawn from it. There is not even a fig-leaf of an attempt to appear fair. Many times I was tempted to quit reading and fling the book across the room. I persevered because of my interest in the subject; you might say I persisted for scholarly reasons.
And talking of scholarship, that in the book appears largely second-hand. The text is copiously annotated (there are nearly 100 pages of endnotes!) but most of the notes are just attributions of clever turns of phrase Brendon has mined from other people’s work; only rarely do they seem to offer factual support for his assertions. On the subject of my own country many of his statements are flatly wrong, leading me to believe that his scholarship regarding other parts of the erstwhile British Empire is probably just as sloppy.
Brendon also seems to have a personal grouse against Rupert Murdoch, and misses no opportunity to slander the man, the newspapers he owns, and even Murdoch’s forebears. Astonishing, that he could find time for such pettiness in the midst of this Herculean literary effort.
Incidentally, and ironically, I borrowed this book from the British Council library in the capital city of the former British colony where I was born and still live. That fact itself gives the lie to many of Brendon's animadversions.
September 17, 2022
Piers Brendon’s The Decline and Fall of the British Empire provides a detailed, sardonic survey of the Empire on which the Sun Never Set. Brendon’s book covers the British Empire from the British surrender at Yorktown to the handover of Hong Kong, showing how the Empire’s very growth and seeming success destroyed its long-term health. His central thesis is that “the Empire was undermined by its own internal contradictions,” a fact amply in evidence throughout. Britain’s stated liberal ideals and “civilizing” goals were inherently at odds with an imperial project that demanded the subjugation of masses of humans: how “liberal” is an empire that enslaves Africans, creates concentration camps, nurtures famine and occasionally commits wholesale genocide? Expansion, often unplanned but rarely repudiated, threatened the Empire’s integrity by starting new wars, which the British often lost, or encouraged internal rebellions which they struggled to suppress. Relying on native soldiers to police the Empire handed a literal loaded gun to potential troublemakers (as the British learned in the Indian Mutiny and elsewhere). Many of the improvements (particularly Western-style education) bestowed upon the colonies encouraged nationalism and self-reliance among colonial subjects. By World War One the Empire reached its apex, but the spoils of that war (new colonies in Africa and the Middle East) stretched the Empire to the breaking point, inspiring nationalists in Ireland, India, Egypt and the Holy Land to oppose it - whether through political action, terrorism or all-out revolt. It took a Second World War for the Empire to fully unravel; its military resources exhausted and political will unable to stand the new consensus, the British lost its colonies to rebellions, partition and international pressure, leaving a ruinous legacy behind them.
The sheer scope of Brendon’s book is impressive, examining colonies from Ireland to New Zealand in a series of diverting mini-essays. The narrative is enlivened with short, sharp portraits of British politicians (Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George and the ubiquitous Churchill), empire-builders (from the sex-obsessed explorer Richard Burton to the megalomaniacal Cecil Rhodes) and colonial nationalists (Gandhi, Michael Collins, Paul Krueger, etc.); these portraits are generally critical (Lord Kitchener of Khartoum is a humorless martinet who “never opened his mouth except to order an execution”), some bordering on caricature (Anthony Eden’s an emasculated drug addict sleepwalking through the Suez Crisis), a very few positive. The book depicts the usual military conquests (the disastrous invasions of Afghanistan, the sanguine South African wars against the Boers and Zulu and disastrous Great War battles), rebellions (the Mahdist Wars in Sudan, Ireland’s Easter Rising and the Mau-Mau movement in Kenya) and disasters like the Bengal Famine and Irish Potato Famine with unflinching verve and color. But the book’s strengths aren’t always the Great Men portraiture but the depiction of imperial culture, from the rise of the mustache among officials in the Raj to the standardization of postage stamps and the debauched lifestyles of colonists in Kenya, Shanghai and elsewhere. The book is sometimes rambling, sometimes juvenile (Brendon seems enamored with sniggering sexual comments) and overly stresses comparisons with Gibbon and the Roman Empire. Even so, it’s always readable, compelling and persuasive. Brendon does not go as far as Caroline Elkins’ more recent Legacy of Violence, but few will came away from his book with illusions about Pax Britannica.
The sheer scope of Brendon’s book is impressive, examining colonies from Ireland to New Zealand in a series of diverting mini-essays. The narrative is enlivened with short, sharp portraits of British politicians (Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George and the ubiquitous Churchill), empire-builders (from the sex-obsessed explorer Richard Burton to the megalomaniacal Cecil Rhodes) and colonial nationalists (Gandhi, Michael Collins, Paul Krueger, etc.); these portraits are generally critical (Lord Kitchener of Khartoum is a humorless martinet who “never opened his mouth except to order an execution”), some bordering on caricature (Anthony Eden’s an emasculated drug addict sleepwalking through the Suez Crisis), a very few positive. The book depicts the usual military conquests (the disastrous invasions of Afghanistan, the sanguine South African wars against the Boers and Zulu and disastrous Great War battles), rebellions (the Mahdist Wars in Sudan, Ireland’s Easter Rising and the Mau-Mau movement in Kenya) and disasters like the Bengal Famine and Irish Potato Famine with unflinching verve and color. But the book’s strengths aren’t always the Great Men portraiture but the depiction of imperial culture, from the rise of the mustache among officials in the Raj to the standardization of postage stamps and the debauched lifestyles of colonists in Kenya, Shanghai and elsewhere. The book is sometimes rambling, sometimes juvenile (Brendon seems enamored with sniggering sexual comments) and overly stresses comparisons with Gibbon and the Roman Empire. Even so, it’s always readable, compelling and persuasive. Brendon does not go as far as Caroline Elkins’ more recent Legacy of Violence, but few will came away from his book with illusions about Pax Britannica.
December 18, 2013
EMPIRE OF ANECDOTES
"The Decline and Fall of the British Empire" by Piers Brendon is an entertaining narrative history of the British Empire from the time of the American Revolution to the lowering of the Union Jack in Hong Kong barely a dozen years ago. The cover of the book itself nicely sums up Brendons iconoclastic attitude, at the top we have what might be termed a painting of the "Imperial Realism" school: a bunch of jaunty chaps from across the Empire marching to War (non whites at the back); the reality, or one reality, is below: an informal grouping of young imperialists, rat arsed with the chap sitting on the bench in agonizingly tight trousers sporting a moustache (which he has somehow wangled from a walrus) and looking particularly deranged.
Brendon seeks to capture the essence of Empire by demystifying it with a stream of anecdotes that are firmly anchored to the events that make up that Empires History. His accounts of the various characters, British and otherwise who had their moments at the centre of the Imperial stage is in a manner that is both illuminating, wry and occasionally even hilarious (especially regarding facial hair of which his knowledge is encyclopaedic). He has an eye and for the apposite quote, writes in an extremely fluent prose which is a pleasure to read and manages to treat the whole subject in a light and accessible manner without trivialising such brutal events as the Bengal "famine" of World War 2, the Opium Wars, the Bengal "famine" after conquistador Clives conquests or the abysmal treatment of aboriginal peoples in Australasia.
I would hesitate to call it a scholarly work which is not to say that there is anything incorrect in the narrative or dubious in Brendons opinions, just that the book lacks the in depth analysis of Economic, Demographic, Political and Cultural factors both in Britain in particular and the Empire in general. What it does do is give the reader a whirlwind tour of Imperial History from 1781 to 1997 and as such would be ideal either as an introductory book to the Empire or as a diversion for the more jaded scholar.
"The Decline and Fall of the British Empire" by Piers Brendon is an entertaining narrative history of the British Empire from the time of the American Revolution to the lowering of the Union Jack in Hong Kong barely a dozen years ago. The cover of the book itself nicely sums up Brendons iconoclastic attitude, at the top we have what might be termed a painting of the "Imperial Realism" school: a bunch of jaunty chaps from across the Empire marching to War (non whites at the back); the reality, or one reality, is below: an informal grouping of young imperialists, rat arsed with the chap sitting on the bench in agonizingly tight trousers sporting a moustache (which he has somehow wangled from a walrus) and looking particularly deranged.
Brendon seeks to capture the essence of Empire by demystifying it with a stream of anecdotes that are firmly anchored to the events that make up that Empires History. His accounts of the various characters, British and otherwise who had their moments at the centre of the Imperial stage is in a manner that is both illuminating, wry and occasionally even hilarious (especially regarding facial hair of which his knowledge is encyclopaedic). He has an eye and for the apposite quote, writes in an extremely fluent prose which is a pleasure to read and manages to treat the whole subject in a light and accessible manner without trivialising such brutal events as the Bengal "famine" of World War 2, the Opium Wars, the Bengal "famine" after conquistador Clives conquests or the abysmal treatment of aboriginal peoples in Australasia.
I would hesitate to call it a scholarly work which is not to say that there is anything incorrect in the narrative or dubious in Brendons opinions, just that the book lacks the in depth analysis of Economic, Demographic, Political and Cultural factors both in Britain in particular and the Empire in general. What it does do is give the reader a whirlwind tour of Imperial History from 1781 to 1997 and as such would be ideal either as an introductory book to the Empire or as a diversion for the more jaded scholar.
February 4, 2017
This book deserves a 5 star rating because of the profound scholarship and research that dominates every page with such fine work. On the other hand, the massive negative tone of the book will distract the average reader, and the details about hundreds of people involved in the "decline," in one way or another, are overwhelming. Accurate, honest, scholarly, but not an easy read. Somehow, the contributions the British made to the world in so many important ways receive very little praise.
December 31, 2019
As other people have pointed out, this book is a farrago of anecdotes, all charmingly relayed, but rarely amounting to much more.
The themes are few, but they poke through the maundering narration every once in a while. The first is that Britain didn't set out to win an empire. As one British historian said as early as 1883, the British seemed to have conquered the world in a fit of absentmindedness. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli complained about being dragged into conquest by "prancing proconsuls," but he annexed the Gold Coast and Fiji (1874), the Transvaal in South Africa (1877) and the following year took over Cyprus. Prime Minister Gladstone succeeded Disraeli, and attacked all his unnecessary conquests, yet the following year he sent Sir Garnet Wolesley to put down Colonel Ahmed Arabi's revolt in Egypt, which threatened both British creditors and the Suez canal, and then enforced a suzerainty over the country, which Gladstone claimed was temporary. Sir George Goldie's Royal Niger Company and its intense but squeamish agent Frederick Lugard signed up preliminary deals with much of what became Nigeria, and Sir William MacKinnon's Imperial East Africa Company also used Lugard to make treaties with swathes of future Uganda and Kenya, but it was only after 1894 (1899 for Nigeria), when Britain worried about French penetration, that the government took over these areas from the companies and turned them into protectorates. Cecil Rhodes did the same thing with what became Zambia and Zimbabwe and Malawi, mainly to encircle the Boers who were threatening British interests and his diamond minds. At this very time, the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, complained the continent of Africa was "created to be a burden to the Foreign Offices." It as an open question of whether anyone in Britain wanted all this land. Often they just didn't want anyone else to have it.
British disinterest is demonstrated by how few British civil servants and officers actually went overseas. As one Indian missionary said, "Our Empire here has existed more upon the opinion that the people had of our strength than upon our force." The Indian Civil Service governed tens of millions, but was about 1,200 strong. Malaya's was 220. The 43 million people of British Africa, spread over 2 million square miles, were run by just 1,200 administrators, 200 judges, and a 1,000 policemen and soliders, the highest of whom ranked Lieutenant Colonel.
The other big theme is that everyone in Britain saw their empire as analogous to Rome's, which also meant they understood it was destined to fall. Disraeli touted Roman analogies for every conquest, and celebrated "Imperium et libertas," but also worried about decline. Cecil Rhodes, like many others, was obsessed with Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, and did everything in his power to stave off what he saw as a semi-inevitable end. Winston Churchill was as much a pro-empire man as any, yet he read Gibbon and knew that "the shores of History are littered with the wrecks of Empires."
Thus, despite reaching a territorial peak after World War I, under the League of Nations Mandate system (which the British understood as a crude mask for conquest), most understood the cries of self-determination that arose from the war were impossible to squelch. In 1921 Michael Collins negotiated a deal with England to leave Ireland, and then was shot by a nationalist for consenting to the division of the North (it was only 16 years later that Ireland's constitution formally separated from the Crown). In 1935 the Government of India Act ceded most of India to local parliaments and gave Indians increased representation on the Viceroy's Council. The next year the Egyptian Treaty gave the country nominal independence. Yet after World War II, which both sullied the reputation of the West and drained the British Treasury that protected the "sterling zone," the jig was really up. Burma, India, and Israel went within five years, and most of Africa and Asia soon after.
The story of the 200 years of the British empire is a grand story, one with fathomless implications for human civilization across the globe, yet this book presents it as a mass of amusing character sketches, eccentric soldiers, sporting Governor-Generals, and set-piece battles. It gives one pictures, but no story.
The themes are few, but they poke through the maundering narration every once in a while. The first is that Britain didn't set out to win an empire. As one British historian said as early as 1883, the British seemed to have conquered the world in a fit of absentmindedness. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli complained about being dragged into conquest by "prancing proconsuls," but he annexed the Gold Coast and Fiji (1874), the Transvaal in South Africa (1877) and the following year took over Cyprus. Prime Minister Gladstone succeeded Disraeli, and attacked all his unnecessary conquests, yet the following year he sent Sir Garnet Wolesley to put down Colonel Ahmed Arabi's revolt in Egypt, which threatened both British creditors and the Suez canal, and then enforced a suzerainty over the country, which Gladstone claimed was temporary. Sir George Goldie's Royal Niger Company and its intense but squeamish agent Frederick Lugard signed up preliminary deals with much of what became Nigeria, and Sir William MacKinnon's Imperial East Africa Company also used Lugard to make treaties with swathes of future Uganda and Kenya, but it was only after 1894 (1899 for Nigeria), when Britain worried about French penetration, that the government took over these areas from the companies and turned them into protectorates. Cecil Rhodes did the same thing with what became Zambia and Zimbabwe and Malawi, mainly to encircle the Boers who were threatening British interests and his diamond minds. At this very time, the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, complained the continent of Africa was "created to be a burden to the Foreign Offices." It as an open question of whether anyone in Britain wanted all this land. Often they just didn't want anyone else to have it.
British disinterest is demonstrated by how few British civil servants and officers actually went overseas. As one Indian missionary said, "Our Empire here has existed more upon the opinion that the people had of our strength than upon our force." The Indian Civil Service governed tens of millions, but was about 1,200 strong. Malaya's was 220. The 43 million people of British Africa, spread over 2 million square miles, were run by just 1,200 administrators, 200 judges, and a 1,000 policemen and soliders, the highest of whom ranked Lieutenant Colonel.
The other big theme is that everyone in Britain saw their empire as analogous to Rome's, which also meant they understood it was destined to fall. Disraeli touted Roman analogies for every conquest, and celebrated "Imperium et libertas," but also worried about decline. Cecil Rhodes, like many others, was obsessed with Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, and did everything in his power to stave off what he saw as a semi-inevitable end. Winston Churchill was as much a pro-empire man as any, yet he read Gibbon and knew that "the shores of History are littered with the wrecks of Empires."
Thus, despite reaching a territorial peak after World War I, under the League of Nations Mandate system (which the British understood as a crude mask for conquest), most understood the cries of self-determination that arose from the war were impossible to squelch. In 1921 Michael Collins negotiated a deal with England to leave Ireland, and then was shot by a nationalist for consenting to the division of the North (it was only 16 years later that Ireland's constitution formally separated from the Crown). In 1935 the Government of India Act ceded most of India to local parliaments and gave Indians increased representation on the Viceroy's Council. The next year the Egyptian Treaty gave the country nominal independence. Yet after World War II, which both sullied the reputation of the West and drained the British Treasury that protected the "sterling zone," the jig was really up. Burma, India, and Israel went within five years, and most of Africa and Asia soon after.
The story of the 200 years of the British empire is a grand story, one with fathomless implications for human civilization across the globe, yet this book presents it as a mass of amusing character sketches, eccentric soldiers, sporting Governor-Generals, and set-piece battles. It gives one pictures, but no story.
August 9, 2011
In a sane country, Piers Brendon’s narrative of the British Empire from its apogee to its end would be required reading for America’s current empire builders, publicists and apologists. That not being the case, Brendon’s masterful study will be ignored in the United States, which is a pity, for it is a virtual catalogue of the types of delusional, conflicted thinking and behavior that both created the British empire and guaranteed its sloppy dissolution. As Brendon so aptly suggests, virtually every mistake made by American foreign policy makers from the end of World War II through the latest excesses of our “War on Terror” was first prefigured by Britain’s repetitive misadventures in colonial America, India, Ireland and other regions too numerous to name. Although a lengthy tome, "Decline" remains compulsively readable from first page to last and contains much mordant humor—not to mention a shocking but diverting cast of fools, idealists and outright madmen that easily put the architects of our current global debacles to shame. Along the way, Brendon quotes W. Somerset Maugham on the desired style for a chronicler of the Empire: “I would have him write lucidly and yet with dignity; I would have his periods march with a firm step. I should like his sentences to ring out as the anvil rings when the hammer strikes it.” Brendon, whose admitted literary model was Edward Gibbon,does exactly that here and readers who enjoy "Decline" should also check out two of his other books: "Eminent Edwardians," a worthy sequel to Lytton Strachey’s "Eminent Victorians," and "Winston Churchill," the best short biography of that complex and empire-besotted Victorian.
October 18, 2014
This is a book which is not without its frustrations. Superficially it is history in the most convetional sense, an account of what happened. Direct authorial comment is limited, and theories - heaven forfend! - are definitely to be kept at arm's length. Scratch the surface though and the author's position is both easy to defend and hard to argue with: in general Empire is a bad idea and the British Empire is no exception. Definitely no exception.
Initially the book makes much of the parralels between the British and the Romans which the classically educated bodes who ran the empire were in love with. The early loss of the North American colonies gave impetuous to the belief that decline and fall was inevitable. But even this theme is submerged by the mass of anecdote which is both this book's strength and its weakness. For nearly two hundred years we appeared to send forth a mass of chinless public schoolboys (think of David Camereon as the archetype) and middle class racist boors (think Nigel Farage) to wreck havoc on the world. And there is a constant stream of consequences - the development of the slave trade, the treatment of prisoners deported to Australia and New Zealand, the great famine in Ireland, a sequences of famines in India, culminating in one in Bengal in the early 1940s which resulted in the deaths of two to three million people. What was the worst thing we did or which happended on our watch? My money is on the violance surrounding the partition of India, but there is competition and lots of it.
At times I would have appreciated a 'what did the British do for us?' moment and the book makes it clear that many colonial powers were actually worse - the Belgiums, who probably reduced the Congo's population by 50%, and the Japanese for example. But for every hospital or university we left we'd built a park proudly bearing its 'no dogs or Chinese/Indian/black peeople' allowed.
Piers Brandon is incapable of writing anything which is not amusing, and his erudition and knowledge are extraordinary. There are sections on moustaches which are hilarious, and should be compulsory for anyone taking part in 'movember'. But if he is amusing it is in the same way that Swift is amusing, it masks a deep despair about mankind.
The mass of detail makes this book heavy going, but also constantly enlightening. To be re-read at some point, even if there are other books which need to be read (or even written) on the achievements of the empire and on attitudes to the empire at home, many of which were critical.
(PS for anyone who read the earlier comments the observation 'that was the end of the British Empire' is extraordinarily perceptive. The collapse of British forces in the face of the Japanese advances really broke a spell and virtually the entire empire was to unravel within thirty years of the fall of Singapore).
Initially the book makes much of the parralels between the British and the Romans which the classically educated bodes who ran the empire were in love with. The early loss of the North American colonies gave impetuous to the belief that decline and fall was inevitable. But even this theme is submerged by the mass of anecdote which is both this book's strength and its weakness. For nearly two hundred years we appeared to send forth a mass of chinless public schoolboys (think of David Camereon as the archetype) and middle class racist boors (think Nigel Farage) to wreck havoc on the world. And there is a constant stream of consequences - the development of the slave trade, the treatment of prisoners deported to Australia and New Zealand, the great famine in Ireland, a sequences of famines in India, culminating in one in Bengal in the early 1940s which resulted in the deaths of two to three million people. What was the worst thing we did or which happended on our watch? My money is on the violance surrounding the partition of India, but there is competition and lots of it.
At times I would have appreciated a 'what did the British do for us?' moment and the book makes it clear that many colonial powers were actually worse - the Belgiums, who probably reduced the Congo's population by 50%, and the Japanese for example. But for every hospital or university we left we'd built a park proudly bearing its 'no dogs or Chinese/Indian/black peeople' allowed.
Piers Brandon is incapable of writing anything which is not amusing, and his erudition and knowledge are extraordinary. There are sections on moustaches which are hilarious, and should be compulsory for anyone taking part in 'movember'. But if he is amusing it is in the same way that Swift is amusing, it masks a deep despair about mankind.
The mass of detail makes this book heavy going, but also constantly enlightening. To be re-read at some point, even if there are other books which need to be read (or even written) on the achievements of the empire and on attitudes to the empire at home, many of which were critical.
(PS for anyone who read the earlier comments the observation 'that was the end of the British Empire' is extraordinarily perceptive. The collapse of British forces in the face of the Japanese advances really broke a spell and virtually the entire empire was to unravel within thirty years of the fall of Singapore).
April 24, 2010
I am not sure I am going to finish this book. It is rather doom-laden and hateful in its prose. The author sees portents of the crumbling of the British Empire in military success of the 18th century, which is rather a stretch since the empire did not really crumble till after World
War II.
I think I would simply prefer a more objective history of British Empire. The sound of the axe-grinding in the background of this book is deafening, and spoils the experience of reading it.
War II.
I think I would simply prefer a more objective history of British Empire. The sound of the axe-grinding in the background of this book is deafening, and spoils the experience of reading it.
December 14, 2014
An understandably long history of the empire's crumble but extremely good. After reading this I wondered why we ever had anything to do with that country. Some of their behavior put the Nazis of WWII to shame. As an Eagle Scout I was particularly ashamed to read about the exploits of Lord Baden Powell, the founder of Scouting, while he was stationed in Africa.
November 8, 2023
that was something of a slog. quality, but loooooooooooooong. also, c'mon dude, i'm sure colonization had plenty of good effects, and it would have been nice to cover a few of those; your vitriol would have been more believable. picked up a lot of history that i doubt i would have anywhere else. but so, so, so long.
October 25, 2009
Amazing history of the British Empire; Brendon has a genuine gift for the idiosyncratic detail, particularly the character detail. A dizzying array of whacked out racists, fumbling mamas boys, stranded intellectuals, brutal Kurtz-esque leaders, incompetents. At all times Brendon keeps focused on the Empire itself, not dipping into any of the major conflicts (the world wars) other than how they impacted the Empire itself. What's amazing about the book is not just the scope and scale of the British Empire -- nearly a billion people under the crown's sway at its height -- but how tenuous it all was from the beginning. Not just because the basic concept of British social justice doomed the empire from the beginning (true enough, though enough atrocities are committed for five empires), but how few people the Brits employed to govern all those colonies. There were countries in Africa with 3 million people living in an area the size of Texas controlled by less than 200 British officials. India understandably takes center stage for a good chunk of the book, but the chapter on the Kenyan Mau Mau uprising (for example) is illuminating in how brutal the Brits response was (all told, the
"infamously savage" Mau Mau killed 32 white civilians while at least 20,000 Kenyans died in concentration camp like prisons and at least that many died in armed conflicts with the Brits in putting down the rebellion). As Brendon himself points out in his introduction, the British Empire was always a lot of smoke and mirrors, as much a concept as an actual entity, and the rapidity with which it all fell apart after World War II is astonishing. In 1945, 700 million people lived under British colonial rule; 20 years later, the number was 5 million! A fascinating history and Brendon is a very witty, nimble writer with an idiosyncratic point of view (the breadth of his research and his grasp on the political culture in all those Empire countries is truly astonishing), making this feel like a very personalized history, albeit history on a grand scale.
"infamously savage" Mau Mau killed 32 white civilians while at least 20,000 Kenyans died in concentration camp like prisons and at least that many died in armed conflicts with the Brits in putting down the rebellion). As Brendon himself points out in his introduction, the British Empire was always a lot of smoke and mirrors, as much a concept as an actual entity, and the rapidity with which it all fell apart after World War II is astonishing. In 1945, 700 million people lived under British colonial rule; 20 years later, the number was 5 million! A fascinating history and Brendon is a very witty, nimble writer with an idiosyncratic point of view (the breadth of his research and his grasp on the political culture in all those Empire countries is truly astonishing), making this feel like a very personalized history, albeit history on a grand scale.
September 6, 2010
Very much a mainstream 'narrative' history of the empire with very little, to no, deep analysis provided. This was disappointing to me because I ended up with Herodotus when I had been expecting Thucydides.
Not a bad history as histories go but nothing particularly insightful.
If you had not read a history of the Empire before this then the Decline and Fall is a good place to begin...rock solid actually. However, if you are aware of the 'narrative' then this is just giving the old bones a long tongue.
Many of these histories of the British Empire are, and this is the case with this one, a disguised warning to the supposed American Empire. Because of this they are verging upon the propagandistic and fail to control their their perspectives. 'Decline' has most of the ideology under control but not entirely.
Again, I return to an earlier sentiment: this is a good history but not a great one. There are plenty of good histories out there...what we need more of are great histories. Of course, this is more than is reasonable to expect...but after all shouldn't we 'be realistic...demand the impossible'. At least as consumers of ideas?!
Recommended for history neophytes.
Not a bad history as histories go but nothing particularly insightful.
If you had not read a history of the Empire before this then the Decline and Fall is a good place to begin...rock solid actually. However, if you are aware of the 'narrative' then this is just giving the old bones a long tongue.
Many of these histories of the British Empire are, and this is the case with this one, a disguised warning to the supposed American Empire. Because of this they are verging upon the propagandistic and fail to control their their perspectives. 'Decline' has most of the ideology under control but not entirely.
Again, I return to an earlier sentiment: this is a good history but not a great one. There are plenty of good histories out there...what we need more of are great histories. Of course, this is more than is reasonable to expect...but after all shouldn't we 'be realistic...demand the impossible'. At least as consumers of ideas?!
Recommended for history neophytes.
June 10, 2019
(The English review is placed beneath Russian one)
Я остановился на 5 главе, на странице 165, т.к. дальше читать было нужно уже через силу, а у меня и так порядочно книг, которые я ещё не прочитал. Поэтому сужу только о небольшой части, но думаю, книга не сильно меняется в последующих главах, т.к. все эти 5 глав, по сути, мало чем отличаются, а если и отличаются, то деталями. Суть книги одна – все, что происходило в британских колониях, можно описать только и исключительно только в чёрных тонах. Нет, и не может быть по определению чего-то хорошего, что Британия принесла в свои колонии. И я – автор книги – вам расскажу об этом в самых сочных, отвратительных деталях. Я не упущу ни одного промаха, но умолчу даже об очевидных плюсах. Ибо такова моя позиция. Именно это проносилось у меня в голове, пока я домучивал 4 главу. Даже более, у меня сложилось такое впечатление, что автор получает непередаваемое наслаждение, когда он описывает чёрные страницы британского владычества. С невероятным упоением, со всеми мельчайшими деталями он посвящает читателя в убийства, грабежи, коррупцию, что была отмечена в британских колониях. Как только автор доходил до своей любимый темы, он прям-таки вспыхивал, а потом снова переходил в нудный и плоский текст до следующего момента, когда можно воскликнуть «А! Вот они эти «цивилизованные» британцы! Посмотрите на них! Посмотрите, как они наступают своим солдатским сапогом на лицо человечества! Посмотрите на этих новых гуннов!». У автора британцы фигурируют только со знаком минус, как воры, как разрушители, как насильники, как убийцы. Такое чувство, что британцы нанесли личную обиду автору, за которую он мстит в лучших традициях графа Монте-Кристо.
Второй момент, это фактически полная поверхностность книги. Автор рассказывает, как британцы хозяйничали в колониях только с позиции, показать один-два конкретных – разумеется, самых неприятных – исторических событий, где британцы проявили себя с наихудшей стороны. Всё прочее, что выходит за границы этого, автор вообще не упоминает. Может быть, там и было что-то хорошее, но зачем об этом писать, мы же пишем книгу для того, чтобы показать, как рушилась Британская Империя, а для этого нужно показывать только промахи. Мне же такая позиция кажется дикой. Хочешь показать крушение империи - опиши всё её развитие, а не только с одной стороны, да ещё за очень ограниченный период времени. Мы так до конца и не понимаем, как произошло описываемое событие, ибо мы не знаем, как это началось, что происходило в самой метрополии и не знаем, как действовали все стороны этой драмы. Нам только показывают жестоких и/или глупых, как пробка, британцев, которые не способны ни на стратегическое планирование, ни на тактическое. Даже удивительно, как тогда они захватили столько территорий…
Кстати, там, где автор пишет о Китае, мне вспомнилась более нейтральная книга «Беспокойная империя», где автор также описывает преступления европейских держав по отношению к Китаю, но он также описывает и те плюсы, что имелись во время европейского контроля Китая.
В общем, хоть книга и обещала показать, как рушилась Британская Империя, на деле же она предлагает крайне поверхностные сведения из которых невозможно нарисовать для себя картину Британии того периода, её политику и происходящие изменения как внутри так и во вне империи.
В книге также имеется огромное количество ссылок призванных подкрепить научность и обоснованность книги, однако я нашёл все эти ссылки, попыткой манипуляции читателем, ибо с ссылками это выглядит более авторитетно. На самом деле, и мы все прекрасно это знаем, при определённом уровне мастерства, всегда можно найти цитату одного или множества людей, которые будут подтверждать нужную идею. Всё дело в контексте. Он придаёт вес цитатам.
I stopped at chapter 5, on page 165, because I had to read through strength, and I have already decent books that I have not yet read. Therefore, I judge only a small part of the book, but I think the book does not change much in subsequent chapters, because all these 5 chapters, in fact, are not very different, and if they differ, then only in small details.
The essence of the book: everything that happened in the British colonies, can be described only in black tones. No, and there can be no good by definition what Britain has brought to its colonies. And I - the author of the book - will tell you about it in the most juiciest, most disgusting details. I won't miss a single mistake, but I'll keep quiet about the obvious pros. For this is my position.
That's what I had in mind while I was torturing chapter 4. Even more, I got the impression that the author enjoys the "black pages" of British domination in an indescribable way. With incredible delight, with all the smallest details, he dedicates the reader to murder, robbery, corruption, which was noted in the British colonies. As soon as the author got to his favorite subject, he flashed, and then went back to the tedious and flat text until the next moment, when you can exclaim, "Ah! Here they are these "civilized" Britons! Look at them! Look how they step on the face of humanity with their soldier's boot! Look at these new Huns! The author's Britons appear only with a minus sign, as thieves, as destroyers, as rapists, as murderers. It feels like the British have hurt the author personally, for which he takes revenge in the best traditions of the Count of Monte Cristo.
The second point is that the book is actually a complete superficiality. The author tells us how the British managed the colonies only from the standpoint of showing one or two specific - of course, the most unpleasant - historical events, where the British showed themselves from the worst side. Everything else that goes beyond this, the author does not mention at all.
Maybe there was something good there, but why write about it, we are writing a book to show how the British Empire collapsed, and to do that we need to show only misses.
This position seems crazy to me. If you want to show the collapse of the empire, describe its development, not just on the one hand, and in a very limited period of time. We don't fully understand how the described event happened, because we don't know how it started, what was happening in the metropolis itself, and we don't know how all the sides of this drama acted. We are only shown cruel and/or stupid Britons who are incapable of strategic planning or tactical planning. It is even surprising how they captured so many territories then...
By the way, where the author writes about China, I remembered the more neutral book, Restless Empire: China and the World Since 1750, where the author also describes the crimes of the European powers against China, but he also describes the advantages that existed during the European control of China.
In general, although the book promised to show how the British Empire collapsed, in fact it offers very superficial information from which it is impossible to draw a picture of Britain at that time, its policies and the changes taking place both inside and outside the empire.
The book also contains a large number of references to support the book's scientific rigour and validity, but I have found all of these references, an attempt to manipulate the reader, as it looks more authoritative with references. In fact, and we all know that, with a certain level of skill, it is always possible to find a quote from one or more people who will support the idea. It's all about context. It gives weight to quotes.
Я остановился на 5 главе, на странице 165, т.к. дальше читать было нужно уже через силу, а у меня и так порядочно книг, которые я ещё не прочитал. Поэтому сужу только о небольшой части, но думаю, книга не сильно меняется в последующих главах, т.к. все эти 5 глав, по сути, мало чем отличаются, а если и отличаются, то деталями. Суть книги одна – все, что происходило в британских колониях, можно описать только и исключительно только в чёрных тонах. Нет, и не может быть по определению чего-то хорошего, что Британия принесла в свои колонии. И я – автор книги – вам расскажу об этом в самых сочных, отвратительных деталях. Я не упущу ни одного промаха, но умолчу даже об очевидных плюсах. Ибо такова моя позиция. Именно это проносилось у меня в голове, пока я домучивал 4 главу. Даже более, у меня сложилось такое впечатление, что автор получает непередаваемое наслаждение, когда он описывает чёрные страницы британского владычества. С невероятным упоением, со всеми мельчайшими деталями он посвящает читателя в убийства, грабежи, коррупцию, что была отмечена в британских колониях. Как только автор доходил до своей любимый темы, он прям-таки вспыхивал, а потом снова переходил в нудный и плоский текст до следующего момента, когда можно воскликнуть «А! Вот они эти «цивилизованные» британцы! Посмотрите на них! Посмотрите, как они наступают своим солдатским сапогом на лицо человечества! Посмотрите на этих новых гуннов!». У автора британцы фигурируют только со знаком минус, как воры, как разрушители, как насильники, как убийцы. Такое чувство, что британцы нанесли личную обиду автору, за которую он мстит в лучших традициях графа Монте-Кристо.
Второй момент, это фактически полная поверхностность книги. Автор рассказывает, как британцы хозяйничали в колониях только с позиции, показать один-два конкретных – разумеется, самых неприятных – исторических событий, где британцы проявили себя с наихудшей стороны. Всё прочее, что выходит за границы этого, автор вообще не упоминает. Может быть, там и было что-то хорошее, но зачем об этом писать, мы же пишем книгу для того, чтобы показать, как рушилась Британская Империя, а для этого нужно показывать только промахи. Мне же такая позиция кажется дикой. Хочешь показать крушение империи - опиши всё её развитие, а не только с одной стороны, да ещё за очень ограниченный период времени. Мы так до конца и не понимаем, как произошло описываемое событие, ибо мы не знаем, как это началось, что происходило в самой метрополии и не знаем, как действовали все стороны этой драмы. Нам только показывают жестоких и/или глупых, как пробка, британцев, которые не способны ни на стратегическое планирование, ни на тактическое. Даже удивительно, как тогда они захватили столько территорий…
Кстати, там, где автор пишет о Китае, мне вспомнилась более нейтральная книга «Беспокойная империя», где автор также описывает преступления европейских держав по отношению к Китаю, но он также описывает и те плюсы, что имелись во время европейского контроля Китая.
В общем, хоть книга и обещала показать, как рушилась Британская Империя, на деле же она предлагает крайне поверхностные сведения из которых невозможно нарисовать для себя картину Британии того периода, её политику и происходящие изменения как внутри так и во вне империи.
В книге также имеется огромное количество ссылок призванных подкрепить научность и обоснованность книги, однако я нашёл все эти ссылки, попыткой манипуляции читателем, ибо с ссылками это выглядит более авторитетно. На самом деле, и мы все прекрасно это знаем, при определённом уровне мастерства, всегда можно найти цитату одного или множества людей, которые будут подтверждать нужную идею. Всё дело в контексте. Он придаёт вес цитатам.
I stopped at chapter 5, on page 165, because I had to read through strength, and I have already decent books that I have not yet read. Therefore, I judge only a small part of the book, but I think the book does not change much in subsequent chapters, because all these 5 chapters, in fact, are not very different, and if they differ, then only in small details.
The essence of the book: everything that happened in the British colonies, can be described only in black tones. No, and there can be no good by definition what Britain has brought to its colonies. And I - the author of the book - will tell you about it in the most juiciest, most disgusting details. I won't miss a single mistake, but I'll keep quiet about the obvious pros. For this is my position.
That's what I had in mind while I was torturing chapter 4. Even more, I got the impression that the author enjoys the "black pages" of British domination in an indescribable way. With incredible delight, with all the smallest details, he dedicates the reader to murder, robbery, corruption, which was noted in the British colonies. As soon as the author got to his favorite subject, he flashed, and then went back to the tedious and flat text until the next moment, when you can exclaim, "Ah! Here they are these "civilized" Britons! Look at them! Look how they step on the face of humanity with their soldier's boot! Look at these new Huns! The author's Britons appear only with a minus sign, as thieves, as destroyers, as rapists, as murderers. It feels like the British have hurt the author personally, for which he takes revenge in the best traditions of the Count of Monte Cristo.
The second point is that the book is actually a complete superficiality. The author tells us how the British managed the colonies only from the standpoint of showing one or two specific - of course, the most unpleasant - historical events, where the British showed themselves from the worst side. Everything else that goes beyond this, the author does not mention at all.
Maybe there was something good there, but why write about it, we are writing a book to show how the British Empire collapsed, and to do that we need to show only misses.
This position seems crazy to me. If you want to show the collapse of the empire, describe its development, not just on the one hand, and in a very limited period of time. We don't fully understand how the described event happened, because we don't know how it started, what was happening in the metropolis itself, and we don't know how all the sides of this drama acted. We are only shown cruel and/or stupid Britons who are incapable of strategic planning or tactical planning. It is even surprising how they captured so many territories then...
By the way, where the author writes about China, I remembered the more neutral book, Restless Empire: China and the World Since 1750, where the author also describes the crimes of the European powers against China, but he also describes the advantages that existed during the European control of China.
In general, although the book promised to show how the British Empire collapsed, in fact it offers very superficial information from which it is impossible to draw a picture of Britain at that time, its policies and the changes taking place both inside and outside the empire.
The book also contains a large number of references to support the book's scientific rigour and validity, but I have found all of these references, an attempt to manipulate the reader, as it looks more authoritative with references. In fact, and we all know that, with a certain level of skill, it is always possible to find a quote from one or more people who will support the idea. It's all about context. It gives weight to quotes.
December 10, 2010
Modeled after Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the book cuts a broad swath across modern history - perhaps too broad. The panoply of historical figures and events grows occasionally tedious, and the chapters have a definite pattern. One annoying habit the author has is the juxtaposition of two paragraphs, the second saying the exact opposite about a figure or event than the first. Nevertheless, this is a compellling story, as we watch the mighty British empire slowly stumble its way to emptiness. The author is not at all fond of the whole affair, but is also not enamored of the "freedom fighters" and independence figures who won out - he even is a cynic about Gandhi! A good, but not great, book.
February 28, 2018
Couldn’t stomach the pompous, self-important prose that constantly presumes the reader already knows everything the text is talking about, which, for a history book, ya know, is kinda self-defeating. So I didn’t finish and opted for Lawrence James’ infinitely more readable and enlightening The Rise and Fall of the British Empire instead.
July 31, 2012
One of the best history books ever. Period.
May 1, 2016
“The Decline and fall of the British Empire by Piers Brendon”
The author provides birds eye view of the British Imperial Years, the rise to the fall. Although it is said "The Sun never sets on British Empire" and I wish Sun of Happiness and compassion never sets on any community or nation but this book is more of a guide to people in power and in public life. It lays exemplary thoughts on the table.
The greed for Territorial aggrandizement, well although it speaks about British but may I say it was prevalent among all colonist states, which is atavistic has defined the history of British Empire.
The factors which proved apocalyptic to Britain's large empire and tarnished its gilt are highlighted in this book. The major reason that I understood after reading the book was the policies towards the people of its colonies and unable to denounce the idea of aggrandizement.
Imperialist looked at the land under possession only for their consumption of the natural resource and other commercial needs but what they actually failed to understand was the needs of the local inhabitants, while it is reported that they not only treated the original inhabitants of the colonial land as their god-gifted slaves and also looked down on them. The partial treatment to the people of the captured colonies led to the rise of Jingoism in the Natives and ultimately led to rebellion which finally led to decline and fall of the Empire, as it got impossible to govern the colonies and it was an expensive affair.
The author has tried to analyze between the style of operation of the British Empire to the Roman Empire, where he repeatedly iterates the fact that even after a century, the Romans had control over their lost empire while British lost control of their empire as soon as they left. Maybe internally they still have full control over their ex-colonies through indirect interference in the government but for sure they left plenty of resentment in the minds of the people of their colonies. On personal note I believe what Mahatma Gandhi said while British were departed India" We should let the British depart like good friends as we had very long togetherness on this piece of land".I understand it is difficult for everyone to have similar views.
So, the decline and fall of British Empire began with the loss of the thirteen American Colonies which were a major business hub for them where the ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity flourished.
After the loss of the thirteen colonies, Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nation’s” ideas about “Colonization being after all a non-profitable venture” were considered and were circulated in Britain. They suddenly realized that Colonization is after all resulting in their losses. Hence the Imperialist focused on more on Trade than on acquiring colonies until … India came under the British possession( Which was considered as Jewel in the British Empire *smile*. India was a profitable market. And even though the population of India was huge in comparison to that of Britain, India easily became a colony of the British and hence began the “British Raj” in India.
The main problem with the British colonies was the feeling of Alienation that developed with time and inhumane treatment rendered over the people. The men and women were treated slaves in their own country while the British (also known as rogues by the common people) were enjoying orgies. The Dionysian character of the ruling class agitated the ruled and from there spurred the desire to be free in their own land and the people started protesting. The protests failed at first but at the end, the British had to finally leave.
The Second Boer War in South Africa further highlighted the Imperial desire of insular aggrandizement where just to annex a further large piece of territory, the British took innocent lives. And so with the end of the Boer War, the territories of the Union of South Africa were annexed by the Empire. Further The defeat at the Gallipoli Campaign came as a big surprise to the ruling Empire where they were unable to annex the territory of the Ottoman Empire (the present day Turkey). which came as a major blow to the British.
Unrest in Ireland among Irish was also a major reason of the British Empire fallout, Irish were fed up of British Oppression. The Irish formed a major part of the British Army yet they felt alienated by the British treatment towards them. The economic exploitation was also a major factor and with the Irish Famine which led to starvation of a large population in Ireland,The Irish lost hope in British leadership and the agitation further flared among Irish. Religious differences also played an important part in further increasing the distrust between British and Irish community. Finally with the Irish war of Independence, Ireland was divided with Southern Ireland(or the Republic of Island) which demanded free state and away from the dominion of British and Northern Island, where the people chose to remain a part of the United Kingdom.
Israel was another territory of British which was gifted by the British to the uninhabited Jewish people, who were stranded away from Europe due to unrest,These Jewish people were the victims of the Holocaust and the Barbarism of Nazis in World War 2. Israel became another center of agitation between the Muslims and Jews to the collision of Religious interest.
British also faced major aggression in India where at first there was a mutiny of sepoys resulting from the introduction of new Enfield cartridges where it was rumored that the cartridges consisted of pig meat which was both against the religious sentiments of Hindus and Muslims. Over a large period of time the unjust policies of British instilled a feeling of suppression in Indian and the need for freedom was voiced.
Indian Leaders like Nehru and Gandhi and other prominent Indian leaders worked to get Indian independence and bring forth the idea of self governance, Rising unrest among Indians also aggravated which was not only getting difficult to control but was also bringing bad reputation to the British. The losses suffered by the British while keeping India as a colony were not being compensated by the profits they made through Indian resources or market.
Again the philosophy proposed by Adam Smith got its importance among intellects in Britain "Colonization is not such a profitable venture after all". Before leaving India there were few strategies that led to doubt the British Intentions,One such policy was to divide India on the basis of religious majority. Although it was proposed as the demands of Muslims through its leader Mr Jinnah (a Muslim league leader) ,to create a new Muslim state separate from India.
This was not very well taken by the commoners and non political Indian participants, Protests and Riots broke out all over the country.Majority of Muslims wanted a new state and so a new Muslim state was formed in the shape of Dominion of Pakistan. India and Pakistan got independence.
Although repercussion of this decision was even felt after almost 30 years of Pakistan Independence Later, when a new state called Bangladesh was again separated from Pakistan due to mismatch of ideologies, which illustrated the diversity in religions and ideologies in India.
Just after World War II, the British lost control over their Indian Empire; it became difficult for them to control their Ceylon Empire. The British had first removed the Kandyan Empire from Ceylon (Modern Day Sri Lanka )by force and now they were unable to sustain it. And so they had to leave the pearl on the Indian Brow and with that the British imperial empire was at a verge of total breakdown. Ceylon was more impotatnt as it gave Britain monopoly in Indian Ocean.
Now, the two main remaining territories under the British control were Falkland Islands and Hong Kong. The Falkland Islands still remain a part of British Overseas Empire as they preferred to be with British and didn’t want to stay with Argentina. Hong Kong became part of China in 1997.
I might have missed a few countries about which I read but it was such an informative piece of work that I just couldn’t write all of what I have read.
Piers Brendon just outdoes the research and provides a beautiful outlook to one of the most inspiring empires of the world.
My gratitude to the Author of this book for providing such provoking insight of the important part of World's History
Nandini Goel.
The author provides birds eye view of the British Imperial Years, the rise to the fall. Although it is said "The Sun never sets on British Empire" and I wish Sun of Happiness and compassion never sets on any community or nation but this book is more of a guide to people in power and in public life. It lays exemplary thoughts on the table.
The greed for Territorial aggrandizement, well although it speaks about British but may I say it was prevalent among all colonist states, which is atavistic has defined the history of British Empire.
The factors which proved apocalyptic to Britain's large empire and tarnished its gilt are highlighted in this book. The major reason that I understood after reading the book was the policies towards the people of its colonies and unable to denounce the idea of aggrandizement.
Imperialist looked at the land under possession only for their consumption of the natural resource and other commercial needs but what they actually failed to understand was the needs of the local inhabitants, while it is reported that they not only treated the original inhabitants of the colonial land as their god-gifted slaves and also looked down on them. The partial treatment to the people of the captured colonies led to the rise of Jingoism in the Natives and ultimately led to rebellion which finally led to decline and fall of the Empire, as it got impossible to govern the colonies and it was an expensive affair.
The author has tried to analyze between the style of operation of the British Empire to the Roman Empire, where he repeatedly iterates the fact that even after a century, the Romans had control over their lost empire while British lost control of their empire as soon as they left. Maybe internally they still have full control over their ex-colonies through indirect interference in the government but for sure they left plenty of resentment in the minds of the people of their colonies. On personal note I believe what Mahatma Gandhi said while British were departed India" We should let the British depart like good friends as we had very long togetherness on this piece of land".I understand it is difficult for everyone to have similar views.
So, the decline and fall of British Empire began with the loss of the thirteen American Colonies which were a major business hub for them where the ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity flourished.
After the loss of the thirteen colonies, Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nation’s” ideas about “Colonization being after all a non-profitable venture” were considered and were circulated in Britain. They suddenly realized that Colonization is after all resulting in their losses. Hence the Imperialist focused on more on Trade than on acquiring colonies until … India came under the British possession( Which was considered as Jewel in the British Empire *smile*. India was a profitable market. And even though the population of India was huge in comparison to that of Britain, India easily became a colony of the British and hence began the “British Raj” in India.
The main problem with the British colonies was the feeling of Alienation that developed with time and inhumane treatment rendered over the people. The men and women were treated slaves in their own country while the British (also known as rogues by the common people) were enjoying orgies. The Dionysian character of the ruling class agitated the ruled and from there spurred the desire to be free in their own land and the people started protesting. The protests failed at first but at the end, the British had to finally leave.
The Second Boer War in South Africa further highlighted the Imperial desire of insular aggrandizement where just to annex a further large piece of territory, the British took innocent lives. And so with the end of the Boer War, the territories of the Union of South Africa were annexed by the Empire. Further The defeat at the Gallipoli Campaign came as a big surprise to the ruling Empire where they were unable to annex the territory of the Ottoman Empire (the present day Turkey). which came as a major blow to the British.
Unrest in Ireland among Irish was also a major reason of the British Empire fallout, Irish were fed up of British Oppression. The Irish formed a major part of the British Army yet they felt alienated by the British treatment towards them. The economic exploitation was also a major factor and with the Irish Famine which led to starvation of a large population in Ireland,The Irish lost hope in British leadership and the agitation further flared among Irish. Religious differences also played an important part in further increasing the distrust between British and Irish community. Finally with the Irish war of Independence, Ireland was divided with Southern Ireland(or the Republic of Island) which demanded free state and away from the dominion of British and Northern Island, where the people chose to remain a part of the United Kingdom.
Israel was another territory of British which was gifted by the British to the uninhabited Jewish people, who were stranded away from Europe due to unrest,These Jewish people were the victims of the Holocaust and the Barbarism of Nazis in World War 2. Israel became another center of agitation between the Muslims and Jews to the collision of Religious interest.
British also faced major aggression in India where at first there was a mutiny of sepoys resulting from the introduction of new Enfield cartridges where it was rumored that the cartridges consisted of pig meat which was both against the religious sentiments of Hindus and Muslims. Over a large period of time the unjust policies of British instilled a feeling of suppression in Indian and the need for freedom was voiced.
Indian Leaders like Nehru and Gandhi and other prominent Indian leaders worked to get Indian independence and bring forth the idea of self governance, Rising unrest among Indians also aggravated which was not only getting difficult to control but was also bringing bad reputation to the British. The losses suffered by the British while keeping India as a colony were not being compensated by the profits they made through Indian resources or market.
Again the philosophy proposed by Adam Smith got its importance among intellects in Britain "Colonization is not such a profitable venture after all". Before leaving India there were few strategies that led to doubt the British Intentions,One such policy was to divide India on the basis of religious majority. Although it was proposed as the demands of Muslims through its leader Mr Jinnah (a Muslim league leader) ,to create a new Muslim state separate from India.
This was not very well taken by the commoners and non political Indian participants, Protests and Riots broke out all over the country.Majority of Muslims wanted a new state and so a new Muslim state was formed in the shape of Dominion of Pakistan. India and Pakistan got independence.
Although repercussion of this decision was even felt after almost 30 years of Pakistan Independence Later, when a new state called Bangladesh was again separated from Pakistan due to mismatch of ideologies, which illustrated the diversity in religions and ideologies in India.
Just after World War II, the British lost control over their Indian Empire; it became difficult for them to control their Ceylon Empire. The British had first removed the Kandyan Empire from Ceylon (Modern Day Sri Lanka )by force and now they were unable to sustain it. And so they had to leave the pearl on the Indian Brow and with that the British imperial empire was at a verge of total breakdown. Ceylon was more impotatnt as it gave Britain monopoly in Indian Ocean.
Now, the two main remaining territories under the British control were Falkland Islands and Hong Kong. The Falkland Islands still remain a part of British Overseas Empire as they preferred to be with British and didn’t want to stay with Argentina. Hong Kong became part of China in 1997.
I might have missed a few countries about which I read but it was such an informative piece of work that I just couldn’t write all of what I have read.
Piers Brendon just outdoes the research and provides a beautiful outlook to one of the most inspiring empires of the world.
My gratitude to the Author of this book for providing such provoking insight of the important part of World's History
Nandini Goel.
January 22, 2024
Well researched and comprehensive to a fault, although it gets a bit repetitive towards the end. It's certainly no flaw of Brendon's that the rise and fall of the Empire's colonies were largely rooted in the same basic formula of excess, arrogance, and racism.
From a reading perspective, it would have been wonderful for those larger-than-life Victorian figures to pervade the entire work. Unfortunately, they'd pretty much given way to snivelling bureaucrats by the end of WWII. That's history for you...
From a reading perspective, it would have been wonderful for those larger-than-life Victorian figures to pervade the entire work. Unfortunately, they'd pretty much given way to snivelling bureaucrats by the end of WWII. That's history for you...
December 26, 2024
Such an engaging history that intertwines geopolitics with personal stories. Does an able job of connecting disparate geographies into a consistent narrative.
December 9, 2025
Reading several sweeping books about the empire for something I am working on and this stands alone, packed with great anecdotes and written with a very funny and sardonic tone highly recommend if you want to read one thing on the subject
January 23, 2009
At just under 700 small-font pages, Brendon does a thorough job of detailing many of the major episodes of the Empire's dissolution. These events are examined through the eyes of the Colonial and Foreign Offices, Viceroys, and civil service officers spread across a quarter of the globe and ruling over one-fifth of its population. There is no overarching theory about the causes and nature of the decline and fall of the Empire, although the narrative is unmistakably told through the lens of Edward Gibbon. Instead of a coherent underlying logic, Brendon provides in-depth portrayals of the difficulties--domestic, international, cultural, ethnic, social, economic, and military--inherent in managing such a far-flung and diverse amalgamation of dominions, colonies, mandates, dependencies, military occupations, protectorates, and spheres of influence. Moreover, he provides the reader with a very real sense of the role of the two world wars of forcing Britiain to rely more heavily on its Empire (and thus hastening its demise by heightening tensions between metropole and hinterlands). Not surprisingly, India, Egypt, and the Antipodes make up the bulk of these accounts, with the postwar African and Middle Eastern sagas taking up much of the final third of the book.
The major drawback to Brendon's work is two-fold. First, there is relatively little attention given to the role of competing empires in the acquisition, overstretch, and forfeit of Britain's own Empire. For example, little mention is made of the "Great Game" between Russia and Britain, even though this guided London's ambitions across the Middle East and Asia for much of the period 1814-1907. Second, and related to the first point, Brendon overlooks the importance of inter-agency feuds in undermining the empire. For instance, the notorious rivalry between the India and Egypt offices from 1885-1947 did much to weaken Britain's strategic and moral position from Suez to Singapore, while the continental-peripheral strategy debate in Whitehall during World War I resulted in Britain exhausting its own capabilities by spreading its forces and responsibilities across much of the Mediterranean, Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa.
Brendon provides little in the way of explicit prescription or proscription for the behavior of future superpowers, perhaps because Britain's own demise little mirrored that of its Roman predecessor. However, there is a moral undercurrent to the book, hinting at the importance of soft-power persuasion as the ideal tool for maintaining Pax Americana, as opposed to the hard-power coercion so often favored under Pax Romana and Britannica.
The major drawback to Brendon's work is two-fold. First, there is relatively little attention given to the role of competing empires in the acquisition, overstretch, and forfeit of Britain's own Empire. For example, little mention is made of the "Great Game" between Russia and Britain, even though this guided London's ambitions across the Middle East and Asia for much of the period 1814-1907. Second, and related to the first point, Brendon overlooks the importance of inter-agency feuds in undermining the empire. For instance, the notorious rivalry between the India and Egypt offices from 1885-1947 did much to weaken Britain's strategic and moral position from Suez to Singapore, while the continental-peripheral strategy debate in Whitehall during World War I resulted in Britain exhausting its own capabilities by spreading its forces and responsibilities across much of the Mediterranean, Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa.
Brendon provides little in the way of explicit prescription or proscription for the behavior of future superpowers, perhaps because Britain's own demise little mirrored that of its Roman predecessor. However, there is a moral undercurrent to the book, hinting at the importance of soft-power persuasion as the ideal tool for maintaining Pax Americana, as opposed to the hard-power coercion so often favored under Pax Romana and Britannica.
March 21, 2014
There are innumerable clichés about the British Empire - that it was acquired in a fit of absent-mindedness by shopkeepers, that it was dismantled in a relatively benign manner, that on the whole it was the best of the Empires. Reading this book I'm not sure I can agree with any of those statements.
Spanning the years from 1781, just after the loss of the American colonies, up to 1997 and the handover of Hong Kong, this book is effectively one long history of acquisitiveness, greed, oppression, brutality and hypocrisy. I was quite shocked, to tell the truth. British colonial history never formed part of the syllabus at any point in my schooling, so I've never really known much about the Empire past Kipling and 'the white man's burden', the sun 'never setting on the British Empire' and the lingering legacy of the Commonwealth.
The most striking hallmark of the British Empire was, for me, the inherent hypocrisy at its very heart. The enduring claim was that Britain had a 'duty of care' to protect and nurture these colonies until they could mature to independence - an incredibly patronising attitude to begin with. But in actuality the Empire was far more about exploiting these colonies for our own benefits than any interest or duty to its native inhabitants.
The shadow of Rome hangs over this book like a cloud. All of the imperialists were incredibly aware of the fate of Rome, and the idea that the mother-nation would inevitably fall along with the Empire helps to explain a lot of the attitudes found in this book. What of Rome now, the imperialists would say. What of Macedonia and Egypt and Greece? They had a mortal fear of Britannia's decline and the notion of Empire was incredibly bound up in that. That Britannia still stands, more or less, whilst our Empire has long gone, bar a few rocky outposts that still prove a thorn in the side (say, the Falklands), is more a testament to the modern era than anything politicians, capitalists and imperialists did.
To be honest, it's a miracle any nation wants to be a part of the Commonwealth. With that kind of colonial legacy I'm amazed they want anything to do with 'Great' Britain.
Spanning the years from 1781, just after the loss of the American colonies, up to 1997 and the handover of Hong Kong, this book is effectively one long history of acquisitiveness, greed, oppression, brutality and hypocrisy. I was quite shocked, to tell the truth. British colonial history never formed part of the syllabus at any point in my schooling, so I've never really known much about the Empire past Kipling and 'the white man's burden', the sun 'never setting on the British Empire' and the lingering legacy of the Commonwealth.
The most striking hallmark of the British Empire was, for me, the inherent hypocrisy at its very heart. The enduring claim was that Britain had a 'duty of care' to protect and nurture these colonies until they could mature to independence - an incredibly patronising attitude to begin with. But in actuality the Empire was far more about exploiting these colonies for our own benefits than any interest or duty to its native inhabitants.
The shadow of Rome hangs over this book like a cloud. All of the imperialists were incredibly aware of the fate of Rome, and the idea that the mother-nation would inevitably fall along with the Empire helps to explain a lot of the attitudes found in this book. What of Rome now, the imperialists would say. What of Macedonia and Egypt and Greece? They had a mortal fear of Britannia's decline and the notion of Empire was incredibly bound up in that. That Britannia still stands, more or less, whilst our Empire has long gone, bar a few rocky outposts that still prove a thorn in the side (say, the Falklands), is more a testament to the modern era than anything politicians, capitalists and imperialists did.
To be honest, it's a miracle any nation wants to be a part of the Commonwealth. With that kind of colonial legacy I'm amazed they want anything to do with 'Great' Britain.
May 24, 2020
Just as German students learn and are confronted with the obscurities of the Nazi regime, other cultures and nations should also learn from their darkest past and get confronted with the atrocities in their own histories.
This books goes in this direction for the British reader. It is a collection of episodes from the British rule during its last two centuries and at no moment the author tries to excuse the British by minimizing the damage or the suffering in the colonies, or by emphasizing the benefits that the subjects would eventually obtain.
Although gruesome and overwhelming and although this book is by no means an easy read, it has been refreshing to read a work like this from a British national.
Although Brendon’s prose and style murks the reading, making it more difficult to navigate this extensive tome, after finishing the book I definitely feel many topics of today have become clearer and that my knowledge of the British Empire has been significantly broadened, at least the one referring to the negative side of this history plagued by the struggles of the colonies and atrocities from the British.
This books goes in this direction for the British reader. It is a collection of episodes from the British rule during its last two centuries and at no moment the author tries to excuse the British by minimizing the damage or the suffering in the colonies, or by emphasizing the benefits that the subjects would eventually obtain.
Although gruesome and overwhelming and although this book is by no means an easy read, it has been refreshing to read a work like this from a British national.
Although Brendon’s prose and style murks the reading, making it more difficult to navigate this extensive tome, after finishing the book I definitely feel many topics of today have become clearer and that my knowledge of the British Empire has been significantly broadened, at least the one referring to the negative side of this history plagued by the struggles of the colonies and atrocities from the British.
August 13, 2020
A comprehensive look at the rise, and subsequent fall, of the British Empire. Starting from the surrender at Yorktown in 1781 that ended the American Revolution, and finishing at midnight on July 1, 1997 when Hong Kong reverted back to China, Brendon covers the globe, showcasing every region the British ruled over in this era. Focusing on individuals, he is not afraid to show the contempt many colonial officials had for their subjects, with frequent quotations expressing racial opinions and thoughts. As the title suggests, he also makes frequent reference to Edward Gibbon, though at times the references are stretched a little. Organized roughly on geographic and historic grounds, a lot of time is naturally spent on India, but all regions of the Empire are touched on. While Brendon does look at the independence movements in most regions, he does move quickly on the older dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand), and while it is understandable as they slowly developed independence, it would have been nice to put a little more focus on them. Overall a solid book and easy to get through, a good survey of the British Empire and the way it ended.
February 24, 2013
This is a wide-ranging and ambitious book about a topic that I personally find fascinating.Overall, it is terrific, so let me point out the one or two small flaws that keep me from a five star rating. Because the books range is so wide, naturally there are limits to what the author could cover thoroughly. So there are few places where I caught him taking some research "short cuts," i.e. using fictional accounts as examples without clearly indicating that they were fiction. If this were a history textbook, this would be inexcusable, but since the fictional sources were clearly cited for the careful reader to identify and this is, after all, a readable popular account rather than an academic text, I think these are minor problems in an otherwise remarkably well-written and readable book.
August 8, 2011
A sweeping and highly detailed look at the decline of the British Empire and its eventual demise. Major downfall: focuses too much on comparisons between the fall of the Roman and British Empires. Although this comparison serves as a great central theme for the book, it also simplifies the differences between the two great world empires. Most markedly, Brendan does not explore the place of colonialist agency in the British colonies. Also does not delve into the important postcolonial theories of neocolonialism, subalternity, or hybridity (even if Brendan's monograph refuted these ideas, addressing them is almost completely necessary in the 21st Century study of empire and colonialism). Still, an incredible exploration of the end of empire.
May 16, 2013
An epic one-volume history of Britain's protracted, and often painful, two-hundred-year withdrawal from her colonies. From America to Hong Kong, Piers Brendon has traced the British empire's waning influence and necessary exit from its once ubiquitous global presence. With great wit and a terribly engaging voice, Brendon's history reads easily, despite the weight of the topic and the 656 pages. Although I read it in fits and spurts, I was consistently engaged by the narrative and the characters, tracking the changing colour of a once mostly red map. Despite an unusual fascination with the moustaches worn by the colonizers, The Decline and Fall of the British Empire is a masterpiece of historical writing and ensures that Brendon sits very comfortably beside Gibbon.
September 19, 2013
A wonderfully stirring account of the how the empire was acquired, how it was retained and how it was relinquished - or in other words, a captivating chronicle of human endeavour, nobility, and development but also of prejudices, cruelty, greed and folly - on part of both the ruler and the ruled. Brendon scores in not also giving a history but also how the empire was viewed in the various times.... and the wonderfully terse biographies of not only imperial statesmen and colonial administrators but a veritable who's who of third world leaders - Nehru, Nasser, Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Makarios, Jagan, Aung San and so on. Highly recommended reading to understand the history of a veritable fourth of the world....
February 26, 2017
I enjoyed this book immensely. It pulls together the saga of the end of the British Empire from the loss of the American colonies through to the independence of India and the African colonies and to the gradual slow reduction of the last few bits in the Caribbean, leaving the odd few islands around. Writing this review (February 2017) as the debate over the British exit from the EU plods along, it is both interesting and disturbing that large elements of the present governing party (Conservatives) retain a nostalgia for the lost days of empire and a naive view that this can somehow be recovered. This book should be a corrective to that.
June 14, 2009
Not as amazing as his book on the 1930s _The Dark Valley_ but full of vivid anecdotes and thumbnail sketches of people and places. These qualities make it seem like a wonderful basis for a TV series, but does detract from it as a work of history. On the matters that I'm more familiar with - Indian colonial history and British politics at the time, he is very good - choosing people and places with a wonderful sense of their real significance in the flow of events.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews